Attachment B <br />that visual screening along every boundary line was insufficient. This view was particularly <br />strong for the eastern boundary line. Other neighbors were worried about the proposed right- <br />of-way dedication and thought that the dedication might be imposed from the subject property <br />all the way to River Road. <br />Rick Rubin argued that the site is only 10 feet above the groundwater level which varies with <br />the level of the Willamette River. He stated that this would make stormwater management <br />difficult - causing the stormwater to be discharged on the adjacent City owned open space. <br />Several neighbors argued that the co-housing proposal would be incompatible with the <br />surrounding lands because it would invite strangers into the neighborhood and be disruptive to <br />wildlife. <br />The applicant's team made several observations during their rebuttal. First was that the <br />proposed density for the co-housing project was lower than what the Low Density Residential <br />zoning would ordinarily allow. They also noted that the project would not be visible from the. <br />bike path along the river because large numbers of trees already screened the river from the <br />subject property. <br />Attorney Zack Mittge identified several rules, goals and plans which were identified by the <br />opponents which he stated did not apply to the application. These included: <br />• Statewide Planning Goals generally, and specifically Goals 5 and 15, <br />• Metro Plan goals and objectives, <br />• Lane County code provisions argued by opponents, <br />• Lower River Road Concept Plan - which he argued had not been adopted <br />He stated that no additional on-street parking would result from the project, and that Oakleigh <br />Lane is designed for up to 750 vehicle trips per day. On the topic of stormwater, he <br />distinguished between "treatment" which would occur on site, and "discharge" of treated <br />water which would be evenly spread along the eastern boundary of the site. <br />Open Record Period <br />At the end of the October 2, 2013 hearing, the Hearings Official set an open record <br />period at the request of several parties. The record was left open for: 1) argument and <br />evidence on any topic by any party until October 9, 2013, 2) then until October 16, 2013 for <br />responsive testimony and evidence to information submitted before October 9, 2013, and 3) <br />the applicant's final comment was due October 23, 2013. <br />Numerous parties submitted written testimony and evidence prior to the October 9, 2013 <br />deadline. Those documents are indexed as Exhibits PT-1 through PT-34. More comments were <br />received by the October 16, 2013 deadline. Those documents are indexed as PT.R-01 through <br />PT. R-13. <br />Hearings Official Decision (PDT 13-1, WG 13-1) 3 <br />